Gun owners vs. the NRA

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Gun owners vs. the NRA: What the polling shows

Third, gun owners who were not NRA members were more supportive of gun control than guns owners who were NRA members. Forty percent of non-NRA gun owners supported a national gun registry. Forty percent supported a ban on the sale of magazines with more than 10 rounds. Thirty-six percent supported a ban on semi-automatic weapons—a striking figure given that almost every gun sold today is semi-automatic and gun owners would be likely to know that.

To be sure, this means that the majority of gun owners—regardless of whether they belonged to the NRA—opposed many forms of gun control. But on the other hand, this list of gun laws did not include some popular proposals. For example, gun owners, regardless of NRA membership, appear to support criminal background checks.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...hat-the-polling-shows/?utm_term=.8a8eacd35630
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
The major takeaway is that the NRA in 2014 lost money — that is, they spent more than they took in. Overall, the gun manufacturers’ sales and marketing team — our shorthand for the real NRA — grossed $37 million less in revenue than in 2013.

A hefty chunk of that decrease is in members due. Much of the myth of the NRA’s power stems from its constant refrain of the number 5 million — as in, “we have 5 million members willing and eager to do our bidding at any time.” That figure has always been suspect, with numerous investigations uncovering schemes to inflate the rolls.

Now the latest 990 offers more proof that the numbers are smaller than advertised and getting smaller still. In 2014 member dues plummeted by $47 million — from $175 million to $128 million, according to the NRA’s filing.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-greenwald/nra-convention-dwindling_b_10107208.html
 

patrick jane

BANNED
Banned
40bc7ba0a498a78623185d78c3ae970a.jpg
 

patrick jane

BANNED
Banned
Barb, you sure create a copious amount of threads? I suppose a Little man like yourself, needs a whole lot of attention. I do believe they call that, Napoleon complex.
Maybe that's why his avatar shws a light on the ceiling above his head, to help him look taller. :idunno:
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Interesting safety tip:
You're safer during NRA conventions:

Harvard study demonstrates that unintentional injuries decline when experienced, avid owners spend even a few days away from their guns.
nintentional gun injuries in the US decline by 20 percent during the National Rifle Association’s annual convention, according to a new study in The New England Journal of Medicine. Since NRA meetings attract enthusiasts who pride themselves on firearm safety, the findings challenge the belief that most unintentional gun injuries result from inexperience and lack of training.

“Fewer people using guns means fewer gun injuries, which in some ways is not surprising,” said co-author Anupam Jena of Harvard Medical School, in a statement. “But the drop in gun injuries during these large meetings attended by thousands of well-trained gun owners seems to refute the idea that gun injuries stem solely from lack of experience and training in gun use.”

https://www.fatherly.com/health-science/firearm-injuries-decline-gun-owners-nra-conventions/

Don't they carry guns into the convention? Usually not. Apparently, most venues ban guns, so for that time at least, NRA members aren't accidentally shooting themselves.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
patrick, you were suckered again:

Rumor: The Dick Act passed by Congress in 1903 'invalidates all gun control laws' in the U.S.

It doesn't invalidated any gun control laws. Not only is it not "unrepealable", many parts of it have been repealed over the years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903

They gotcha again, patrick.

But the point of the thread is that there are many less cases of people shooting themselves or others accidentally, when the NRA is in convention and they don't have their guns.

Whodda thought? :shocked:
 
Top